The term "without prejudice". The Dubai Court Practice.

 

The claimant initiated a case in the Dubai Court of First Instance based on an agreement to purchase cryptocurrencies. Истец инициировал дело в суде первой инстанции Дубая по спору из  соглашения о покупке криптовалют.

The claimant stated that the agreed-upon amount of bitcoin had not been transferred after payment and sought reimbursement, along with interest. Истец заявил, что согласованная сумма биткоинов не была переведена после оплаты, и потребовал возмещения уплаты данной суммы с процентами.  

The Dubai Court of First Instance rejected the majority of the claim and only granted a minor portion of the total amount sought. Суд первой инстанции Дубая удовлетворил требования частично, в незначительной части.  

The claimant filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal, claiming that the Court of First Instance omitted the details of WhatsApp contacts between the parties. Истец подал апелляцию в Апелляционный суд, утверждая, что суд первой инстанции не принял во внимание подробную информацию о контактах сторон в WhatsApp.

The details came from settlement discussions in which the defendant agreed to owing the claimed amount. Данная информация была получены в ходе переговоров по урегулированию спора, в ходе которых ответчик согласился выплатить заявленную сумму.

The Court of Appeal decided that statements made during amicable settlement discussions are not evidence of responsibility. Апелляционный суд постановил, что заявления, сделанные в ходе переговоров по урегулированию спора, не принимаются в качестве доказательств.

The Court of Appeal decided this way because the statements were given "without prejudice" and are protected from being used as evidence of liability. Апелляционный суд принял такое решение, поскольку заявления ответчика были даны на основе концепции "Without Prejudice" и защищены от использования в качестве доказательства.

The Dubai Cassation Court ruled that statements made during unsuccessful settlement negotiations were inadmissible as evidence. Кассационный суд Дубая постановил, что заявления, сделанные в ходе безуспешных переговоров по урегулированию спора, недопустимы в качестве доказательств.

The Dubai Cassation Court decision adheres to the common law principles of without prejudice. Решение Кассационного суда Дубая соответствует принципам общего права, концепции "Without Prejudice".

 The decision changes significantly from the common practice of UAE mainland courts. Это решение существенно отличается от общепринятой практики судов материковой части ОАЭ.

SOURCE

The term "without prejudice" is used in the course of negotiations to settle a lawsuit. It indicates that a particular conversation or letter cannot be tendered as evidence in court. It can be considered a form of privilege.¹  This usage flows from the primary meaning: concessions and representations made for the purpose of settlement are simply being mooted for that purpose, and are not meant to actually concede those points in litigation.

Such correspondences must both be made in the course of negotiation, and represent a genuine attempt to settle a dispute between the parties. A prohibition exists on documents marked "without prejudice" being used as a façade to conceal facts or evidence from the court. As a result, documents marked "without prejudice" that do not actually contain any offer of settlement may be used as evidence, should the matter proceed to court. Courts may also decide to exclude from evidence communications not marked "without prejudice" that do contain offers of settlement.^2,3

The House of Lords' 2009 ruling in the case of Ofulue v Bossert UKHL 16 confirmed that the public policy intention behind the without prejudice rule, which serves to encourage the parties in dispute to speak freely in order to settle the issues between them, should enjoy "wide protection", and therefore only in exceptional cases could statements issued "without prejudice" be used in evidence.⁴

The term "without prejudice save as to costs" is a change to the above and refers to a communication that cannot be exhibited in court until the end of the trial, when the court awards legal costs to the successful party unless some other order is made because an offer was unreasonably rejected.⁵ This is also called the Calderbank formula, from Calderbank v Calderbank (2 All E.R. 333, 1976) ^[6 and exists because English courts have held that "without prejudice" includes for the purposes of costs, as in Court of Appeal, in Walker v. Wilshire (23 QBD 335, 1889):

Letters or conversations written or declared to be "without prejudice" cannot be taken into consideration in determining whether there is a good cause for depriving a successful litigant of costs.

 

1.    Butt, Peter; Castle, Richard (2006). Modern Legal Drafting: A Guide to Using Clearer Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 150. ISBN 0-521-67452-2.

2.     "Daleydemont.ns.ca". Archived from the original on 2004-12-15.

3.     "Difference between dismissed with or without prejudice". ILAO. Illinois Legal Aid Online. Retrieved 24 November 2021.

4.     Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, House of Lords ruling on 'without prejudice', published 25 June 2009, accessed 30 October 2023

5.     "Responding to a "Without Prejudice" Letter or Negotiation". litigant.com.au. Retrieved 2016-12-15.

6.    ^ Cortés, Pablo. "An Analysis of Offers to Settle in Common Law Courts: Are They Relevant in the Civil Law Context?" (PDF). Electronic Journal of Comparative Law. 13 (3). Retrieved 25 July 2014.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_(legal_term)#cite_note-11